PROCEEDINGS OF SPIE

SPIEDigitalLibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie

Iterative Fourier transform algorithm:

different approaches to diffractive
optical element design

Marek Skeren, Ivan Richter, Pavel Fiala

Marek Skeren, Ivan Richter, Pavel Fiala, "Iterative Fourier transform

algorithm: different approaches to diffractive optical element design," Proc.
SPIE 4770, Laser Beam Shaping III, (24 October 2002); doi:
10.1117/12.451643

Event: International Symposium on Optical Science and Technology, 2002,

Seattle, WA, United States

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023 Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use

 Iterative Fourier transform algorithm: different approaches to
diffractive optical element design
Marek kereñ, Ivan Richter*, and Pavel Fiala

CzechTechnicalUniversity in Prague,FacultyofNuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering

Department ofPhysical Electronics, BIehová 7, 1 1 519 Prague 1, CZECHREPUBLIC

ABSTRACT

This contribution focuses on the study and comparison of different design approaches for designing phase-only
diffractive optical elements (PDOEs) for different possible applications in laser beam shaping. Especially, new results and
approaches, concerning the iterative Fourier transform a'gorithm, are analyzed, implemented, and compared. Namely,
various approaches within the iterative Fourier transform algorithm (IFTA) are analyzed for the case of phase-only
diffractive optical elementswith quantizedphase levels (eitherbinaryor multilevel structures). First, the general scheme of
the IFTA iterative approach with partialquantization is brieflypresentedand discussed. Then, the special assortment ofthe
general IFTA scheme is given with respect to quantization constraint strategies. Based on such a special classification, the
three practicallyinterestingapproaches are chosen, furtheranalyzed, and compared to each other. The performance ofthese
algorithms is compared in detail in terms ofthe signal-to-noise ratio characteristic developments with respectto the number
of iterations, for various input diffusive-type objects chosen. Also, the performance is documentedon the complex spectra
developments for typical computerreconstruction results. The advantages and drawbacks ofall approaches are discussed,
and a briefguide on the choice ofa particularapproach for typicaldesign tasks is given.Finally, the two ways ofamplitude
elimination within the design procedure are considered, namely the direct elimination and partial elimination of the
amplitudeofthe complexhologramfunction.

Keywords: digital diffractive optical element, laser beam shaping, iterative Fourier-transform algorithm, phase-only DOE,
binaryDOE, multilevel DOE, computer generated hologram, diffractive elementsynthesis.

1. INTRODUCTION

a
Recently, beam shaping elements in form of diffractive optical elements (DOEs) or computer-generated holograms
(CGHs) have progressed very rapidly, mainly because of the prominentdevelopmentof micro fabrication techniques14.
Since their origination5, what have also been dramatically improved are the computer design and encoding methods and
algorithms whichare nowbecoming more and more availablenot only to specialistsin the field ofdiffractiveoptics,but also
a
to a much widercommunity ofopticalengineers. Also, rapid evolution in computing technologies gives in this sense large
possibilities of complicated computerdesigns and simulations of diffraction processes, which were not technically possible
just a few years ago.
Thus, the application field ofsuch DOEs and CGHs has also dramatically expanded, rangingnowadays from "classical
shaping"opticaldiffractive elements to optical information processing and optical interconnects applications, to namejust a
few. What is very critical for all such sophisticated applications is the final reconstruction qualityofdesignedDOEs, as well
as the diffractionefficiency as high as possible. Depending on a particularapplication,typically, some kind of trade-off
between these output qualities is required. On the other hand, some fabrication restrictions still persist and thus the
a
quantization as constraint to eithermagnitude or phase ofthe signal transmission must often takeplace. Preferably, due to
energetic reasons, the phase-onlydiffractive optical elements (PDOEs) are ofprimaryinterest(digital or even binarymicro
a
structuring of DOEs relief), although design studies of amplitude DOEs have also appeared6'7. Hence, there is
simultaneously a strong need for properoptimization algorithms which design as best DOEsas possible underthe limitations
and constrains given.

*
Correspondence: Email: richter@troja.fjfi.cvut.cz; Telephone: +4202-2191 2285;Fax:+4202-84684818

Laser Beam Shaping III, Fred M. Dickey, Scott C. Holswade, David L. Shealy, 75
Editors, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4770 (2002) © 2002 SPIE · 0277-786X/02/$15.00

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Amongall differentparametersavailable for a proper description of PDOEs, we consider here the sufficient set ofthe
two DOE performance qualities, namely the diffraction efficiency and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The diffraction
efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the signal energy within the signal window chosen as an active part of the
reconstruction plane and the total energy in the reconstruction (object) plane8. The SNR then gives the correlation between
theinput signaland reconstructed signalwithinthe signalwindow8.
Within the framework of a paraxial diffractive optics design"6, basically, two types of optimisation schemes exist and
have been investigated thoroughly, namely iterative8" and non-iterative'2'3 methods. Clearly, during the last years, the
iterative methods due to their developments and improving capabilities have become dominant. The iterative Fourier
transform algorithm (IFTA), with all its modifications representing nowadays the main and most popularrepresentatives of
the iterative approaches, is a well known optimisation algorithm for designing computer generated holograms68. Its
advantage follows mainlyfrom its inherent controlofsignaldistribution, enablingto generate diffractive structures with both
high SNR and high diffractionefficiency. Different IFTA approaches and their modifications have soon become standard
optimisation techniques in the field ofdiffractive optics synthesis, and correspondingly, a large numberofpapershas since
its origination been devoted8'14'9 to theoretical issues as well as practical design examples and comparisons to other
techniques.
So, clearly,there has been a lot of increasing attention devotedto improving performance ofthe IFTA method in the last
years8"68. However, up to date, according to our opinion, much less attention has been given to some assortment of the
approaches, and to comparing the actual convergence for the relevant cases (keeping as much as possible parameters the
same), andto directlydetermining and evaluating the dependencies ofthe signal-to-noise ratio on the numberofiterations. It
shouldbe stressedthat although the dependencies ofthe final values ofthe SNR and diffractionefficiency on the number of
iterations (i.e. the algorithm stops for particularnumbers ofiterations in an increasingsequence while the resultingvalues of
the SNR and diffraction efficiencyare plotted) have been known and used in practical designs, what is important for the
purposes of this paper is the internal development of these parameters (namely SNR) during the optimization algorithm
before it stops. Only such knowledge can help to activelyintervene duringthe iterative processto improve the final PDOE
performance. Suchcurvesare alsovery usefulfor a detailedunderstanding ofthe convergence characteristics.
Hence, in this contribution, we are interested in classifying and comparingvarious IFTA modifications with respect to
the overall performance (mainly convergence) for the phase-only diffractive optical elementsofthe diffusive type; i.e. both
binary and multilevel phase level micro structuring is supposed in PDOEs design. Moreover, for simplicity and their
importance, we haveconcentrated herein on the convergence behaviourofFourier-type PDOE hologramsonly (operatingin
thefar-field zone, and calculated by applying theFraunhoffer approximation), although the convergence offocused(Fresnel)
types ofholograms (operating in the near-fieldzone, calculated by applying the Fresnelapproximation) couldbe studied in a
similarway, depending on a particularcomputing approach chosen2023.
When iteratively shapingappropriate multilevel profileswithinthe IFTA method,there remainsan open question howto
iteratively eliminate the amplitude ofa spectrum. Although some studies have been madepreviously, this issue still has not
been resolved.It should be noted that, within this contribution, in all examples, the directamplitude elimination is assumed,
and a problemofthe partial amplitude elimination is only brieflydiscussed withinthe last section.
The maingoal ofthis paper can thus be seen on the following levels: to givethe specific classification ofthe approaches
based on a particularshapeofthe phase part ofthe partiallyquantizing operator in the hologram plane, i.e. basedon various
quantization constraint strategies. Further, to compare and discuss in detail the general strategy and hints for a proper
iterative shaping of the complex hologramspectrum in order to obtain well-optimised multilevel PDOE structures for the
practicallyimportant cases chosen. This is documented on a comparison ofthe threedifferentiterative approaches withinthe
IFTA algorithm. In this sense, this paper represents a continuation ofour previousstudies in this area2126 where both non-
iterative and iterative approaches were studied and practicallyapplied for various PDOE designs,as e.g. for laser beam
shaping.Also in Ref. 23, we studied the properuse and influence ofthe scalefactor,appliedwithinthe replacementoperator
in theobject plane, and we introduced the way ofcharacterisationand monitoring ofthe algorithm convergence by usingthe
complex spectrum representation of a PDOE, and we provided not only the theoretical-simulation results showing the
dependencies ofthe SNR and diffractionefficiency on the key design parameters for both Fourierand Fresnel cases, but also
showedpracticalbeam-shaping design examples, both for diffusiveand fan-out type objects.
Having in mind the above noted aims throughout this paper, we present and comparehere several typical SNR, and
spectrum histogram developmentdata based on the IFTA method, for a case of PDOEs with diffusive-type input objects
(meaning basicallyintensity— either black& white or grey scale— compactobjects).In other words, no FAN-OUT types of
input objects, whichrequire a specialconvergence treatment, are considered here.
The wholepaper is organisedas follows. After this introduction, in the secondsection, the basicsofthe IFTA algorithm
are reviewedand explained, and mathematically defined,togetherwith several issuesnecessary for a properfunctioning, and

76 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 the methodof convergence evaluation throughthe complexspectrum histogram representation24. Here, the general scheme
ofthe IFTA approach is presentedand discussed. In the third section, a detailedassortment oftheapproaches is given, and
a problemofa propermultilevel phase spectrum shaping is illustrated, and general goals are introduced for thethree cases
chosen. Thesethree important design approaches withinthe IFTA method are discussedand compared as the limitingcases,
usingmainlythe SNR evolution curveswith respectto the numberofiterations. Moreover, a comparison is also made using
complexspectra developments which demonstrates clearlythe algorithms behaviours. The advantages and disadvantages of
the approaches are also discussed. The third section is closed by a short discussion on the problem of a proper type of
amplitude elimination withinthe amplitude part of quantizing operator, direct and partialamplitudeelimination approaches
are mentioned. The final section ofthe paper is devotedto conclusion ofthe work.

2. DESIGN OF DIFFRACTIVE STRUCTURESWITHITERATIVE FOURIER TRANSFORM

ALGORITHM

The main idea ofthe basic IFTA algorithm is wellknown6'8'9, and there is no needto go to any details on a general level
here. Since we are interestedin amplitude-only input objects, the phase freedom (i.e. a random initial phase distribution)
within the signal window, as well as the amplitude freedom outside the window are applied. In general, depending on
particular degrees of freedom chosen, an input signal,
representedwithin the signal window, is transformed from
the object plane to the hologram plane using the relevant
transform (e.g. Fourier transform when the far-field DOEs
. are ofinterest, as in this paper,or Fresneltransform).
The continuous complex spectrum obtained in the
hologram plane is often materialised by micro structuring
the fabrication process, which is often capable of
(n) during
producingonly structures with discretely valued functions of
transmittance. Hence, one ofthe necessary designtasks is to
transform complexhologramspectrum functionto a discrete
2
form (mostly to binary or -level phase-only form). This
discretization can be done sequentially through the iterative
process. Hence, the hologramspectrum is partiallyquantized
by the IFTA algorithm within an each iteration step. This
partially quantized signal is then transformed to the
reconstruction plane using the inverse Fourier transform.
Obviously, such partialquantization introduces some noisein
the reconstruction plane. This noise is removed by replacing
Fig.1 Schematic drawing of a typical complex-spectrum the of a. newly calculated the
histogram example for a 4-level . phase DOE the situation . amplitude
. . noisy
. signal within.
. . . . .
indicatessomepoint n somewherein the middle ofthe iteration. signal window with the desired amplitude of the original
. . .
process. Set of values 1, -1, i, and —i, represents the target signal. This modified signal is used as an input to the next
iteration step.
points E(n) is a typical surrounding, and e(n) is a number
The whole IFTA iterative process, as explained above,
(angle)that defines the surroundingunambiguously. can be mathematically describedin general terms withinthe
n-th iteration step as follows (see Fig. 2): g (k,l) is the
signal at the input of the n-th iteration loop in the object domain, G (m,n) is its Fourier transform (denoted Fl) in the
spectral(hologram) domain:
G (m,n)= FT[g (k,l)] (1)

(k,l) and (m,n) describethe coordinates in the object and spectral domains,respectively. After applying thequantization
operator Q atthe spectraldomain,the structure J-J (in,n) is generated:
H (m,n) = Q[G (m,n)] (2)
Globally, the quantization represents a transformation of the hologram function to the desired form while maintaining
reconstructed imagequalitywithin defined constraints. In fact, such a transformation is done by iterative expansion oflocal

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 77

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 a
surroundings E(n) of quantization levels, and can be written formally by corresponding quantization operator Q . The
operator Q must, in principle,consist ofthe two parts, i.e. Q= PA whereP and A are the phaseand amplitudeoperators,
respectively. They perform the partial (or full) quantization in each iteration ofthe PDOE-spectrum phase and amplitude,
respectively. The phaseoperator is typically (for PDOE designs)given by23'24
xE8(n)
P{x}=' (3)
tx otherwise
I
Here, {q1}, I , forms the set oftarget quantization levels, I represents the set ofthe total number of these levels, and
£(n) is the set of particular surroundings within the n-th iteration cycle that simultaneously defines the area where the
replacementofthe valuestakes place. The simulated reconstruction in the spatial domain h(k,l) is given by the inverse
H
Fouriertransform (FT') ofthe (m,n) signal:
h (k,l) = FT' [H (m,n)] (4)
Finally, the new signal (k,l) is obtainedby a properreplacementofthe output signal (k,l) with a desired signal, the
g1 h
current loop is closed, and the next iteration continues. Above,the total numberofiterations considered (see Fig. 2) is given
by N. If the number of iterations n = N the output spectrum of a desired PDOE H(m,n) is generated, if n < N the
, ,
optimisation proceedsinto the next ioop. In a general form,the replacement in the objectdomainis done by the R operator
whichincludesboth spatial constrains (particular design freedoms considered)and the properscalingfactors,as was studied
by us previously21'23'24:
g÷1 (k,l) = R[h(k,l)] (5)
At the spectral domain, there is still a need of
object hologram choosing the way of eliminating the amplitude of a
plane complex spectrum, i.e. to specify the A operator.
Most often, the direct (single-step) amplitude
elimination is applied, with very good results, i.e.
input (g) A[x] = x/xI. However, the stepwise iterative
amplitude elimination is also a possibility (the
amplitude is quantized iteratively in this case, in a
similar way as is done by the P operator for the
phase, i.e. using, for example, surroundings in the
form of area between two unicenter circles)23.
However, until we discuss this issue at the end ofthe
next section, we restrict further discussions to the
direct-amplitude-elimination procedurecase.
Hence, the functionality of the basic IFTA
algorithm depends on the two essentialissues: on the
approach selected for the partial quantization within
thePDOE spectrum (P operator); and on the method
chosen for replacing the output signal within the
signal window with a desired signal ( R operator).
Fig.2 Schematic drawings of the general case of iterative Fourier They both have fundamental influence on the
transform algorithm. Here, R and Q = PA are the operators in the
convergence of the IFTA algorithm. In the object
object and spectral domains, respectively. N and n are the total and domain, the aim during the iterative optimization
actual numbers of iterations, g
(k,l), G(m,n), J-I (m,n), (k,l) h design is to disturb the partially digitized structure (as
are the input signal, its spectrum, partially quantizedspectrum, and its was preparedin previoussteps) in a smallest possible
reconstruction within the n-th iteration, respectively; g(k,1) and way. This is assured by the complex scale factor,
which is an inevitable part ofthe operator R. In each
H(m,n) are the input image and the output hologram structure, iteration step, it must secure that the insertion of the
respectively. original input-image amplitude is done with a smallest
possible distortion to an already partially digitized

78 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 structure in order to minimize the binarization error in the last step. The proper shapes ofthe appropriate scale factors for
both Fourierand Fresnelcaseshave beenderivedand evaluatedin Refs.8,21,23-24.
Herein,a specific shape and influence ofthe R operator is not studiedany further,instead, in considerations below, we
haveopted for the form including the amplitude freedomoutside the signal window, the phase freedoms everywhere within
the signal matrix, with the properly used scale factor23. The next section is thus devoted to a detailed study of the
performance of the P operator, depending on the manner how the surroundings E(n) are generated. It can hence appear
more appropriate, in order to stress out this inherent dependence ofthe P performance on E(n) , to remarktheoperator
P in Eq. (3) as '(n) {x}.
Forthe evaluation ofIFTA overall performance, and particularly for the scale factorutilization, it is also useful to use
some kind of convergence evaluation method. In this paper, we are usingthe method, as introduced in Refs. 23,24, i.e. in
each iteration, the input signal is transformed to the PDOE plane and the complex histogram of the spectral function is
created (before the partial quantization step). Usingthis method,the spectrum of the input signal can be traced during the
whole iteration process. Although one looses the spatial information in this type ofmapping (correspondence ofa particular
valueto its positionwithinthe spectrum), it is particularlyuseful for describing the quantization procedure during the IFTA
optimization processes. Clearly, the approach described above possesses several advantages, especially the possibility to
observe and controlthe convergence duringoptimization and to findstagnationpointsand their locations. In each particular
case, it can thus be decided, based on analyzing the spectrum during optimization, if, for example, the low final quality
parameters appear due to the bad convergence or only due to improperly chosen optimization parameters. Such an
evaluation method will also be used in the next section for a comparison ofthe three differentIFTA approaches, in order to
demonstrate the propershapingofthe DOE optimizedspectrum.
Finally, we would like to commenton the issue concerning the diffractionefficiency calculations, a lot ofattention has
been devoted6'27 to calculating the signal-dependent upper limits of the maximum achievable diffraction efficiency,
regardless of a particulardesign (and thus also fabrication) technique. Such bounds are very helpful when contemplating
about actual DOE applications. However, since we are only interested in the SNR characteristic development within this
paper, and since it is alwayspossibleto appropriately scale the diffraction efficiency valueswith respectto the actual upper
bound, we shouldnotethat we are not dealingwith this problemwithin this contributionat all.

3. ANALYSISAND COMPARISONOF DIFFERENT APPROACHES

Clearly, to improvean actual design process,it is very important to understandall its modifications, especially with
respect the quantization procedure, both theoreticallyand practically— by tracingthe proper DOE qualityparameters. In
to
our case, thesewill be primarilySNR and the complexhistograms developments with respectto the numberofiterations.
Before that, it can be helpful to look at a typical complex histogram example (e.g. ofa 4-level PDOE) - see Fig. 1.
Obviously, somewhere insidethe iteration loop ofthe algorithm, assuming its convergence, the PDOE spectrum could look
like the one illustrated in Fig. 1, i.e. values filling compact areas close to I, -1, i, and -1 values (corresponding to phases
—ir/2, 0, r/2 , and .ir ; remind yourself that this example represents a 4 level case) have already been processed and
representquantizedvalues. On the other hand, the values filling areas close to the phase levels of —3ir/4 , —r/4 ,r/4 , and
3r/4 constitute still unprocessed values. It shouldbe addedthat, withoutthe prerequisite ofthe algorithm convergence, the
complexspectrum would not be shaped in this way at all, as was shown in Ref. 24. Let us now considerthis case from a
point ofview ofa desired spectrum shaping. Ideally, all processed quantizedvalueswould be equalto one ofthe four target
phasevalues.
Evidently, spreading oftheprocessedvalues is caused by disturbances ofthe convergence. Ifthis spreading is small(i.e.
a compactareain the histogram, forming a sort ofa cluster, constituted from processed values, is isolated from regions of
unprocessed values), a further reduction or juncture ofthe values within these clusters is not, in fact, so important, as one
mighthave think from the point ofthe overall algorithm convergence view. As a matter offact, this is becausethese values
cannot jump over to adjacent quantization levels. It means, they cannot be used in further optimisation, i.e. they do not
represent any additional control parameters(or in other words, degrees of freedom) which could affect the convergence
improvement. Actually, the only additional degrees of freedom left constitute of unprocessed values outside of regions
adjacent to target quantization levels. Evidently, to make further optimisation feasible, it is necessary to keep enough of
these unprocessed values as long as possible during the iterative optimisation, and at the same time, to enable already
processed values to jump from a one target phase level to either another one or to the region of unprocessed values (see
Fig. 1).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 79

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 700 /' 1

\
600 593
10000
500
cz
2 2400
(I)
300
5808
200
2851

0 20
/
40 60 80 100
108
/ 20 40 60 80 100
iteration iteration

(a) (b)

iteration

(c)
Fig.3 A typical SNR development with respect to the iteration number (a) for the approach (I) with direct amplitude
elimination, for a 4-level phase DOE (a case ofthe followingdata is plotted: designmatrix=256, signalwindow= 32, total
number ofiterations N= 100 , 4-level phasedesign, signal window location—offaxis). The value of2851 represents the final
SNR obtainedafter N= 100 iterations; (b) for the approach (II) withdirectamplitudeelimination, and with arepetition ofthe
whole partial quantization (N1 20, N2 I ). The value of593 represents the final SNR obtained after N 100 iterations; (c)
for the approach (III) with direct amplitude elimination, and with a repetition of an each partially-quantizing step
(N1= 5, N2=20). The valueof2436represents the final SNR obtained after N= 100 iterations. In cases(b) and (c),the same
parameters as in the case (a) were applied.

Now, let us concentratein a more detail on the operator J

{X} from the point ofview ofa choice of E(n) . In fact, in
further considerations, it is useful to restrict to such regular surroundings which can be determined uniquely by a single
number, labelled e(n), i.e. (n) {X} , as for the most common case ofangular intervals(see Fig. 1). Hence, (n) {X}can be
definedmore specifically as
mm angle(x) —angle(q1
P {x}= LX
zel )
otherwise
(6)

where the function angle of the complex argument X is defined as angle(X)= ço ; X = XIe'' . Clearly, there are several
possibilities of choosing the design strategy now. On one side, s(n)can be kept just simply constant throughout all
iterations, equal to the whole spectral range of interest (as 2'r ) for a given set of quantization levels. Therefore, a full

80 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 quantization only is periodicallyrepeated.On the other side, s(n)can be enlargedgradually step by step (withthe number
ofall such e(n)to cover the spectral range of interest equalto N1 ) while an each actual size ofthe surrounding s(n) is
applied only once. Yet for the other important case, each particulare(n) can again be kept constant during the chosen
numberofrepetitions (let us denotethis numberby N2 ). Clearly, somemore detailedassortment ofthese cases appearsto be
helpful. We shouldnote at this point that the actual shapeof the surroundings given by angularcut-outs intervals (i.e. areas
filled between the two intersecting lines, as is often common) is assumed here for simplicity, although a particular
geometrical shapeofthese e(n)is not substantial for further considerations.
Evidently, ofthe most interest is a combination ofthese two approaches depending on a mutual relationof N1 and N2,
and on their relation with respect to the total number of all iterations N (see Fig. 2). Thinking in such a way is profitable
since it enables to assort such IFTA approaches, and to unify them under the assumptions given. Although such a special
classification is not by far the most general, and is based only on the considerations above, it can be very useful both in
practicalthoughts and furtherstudies including generalization. Hence, the shapeofthe s(n)within the n-th iteration can be
definedin a compact form as

e(n) =
{[}I
Here, L is the numberofphase levels, andthe functions [.•1and {...}' are defined as follows,respectively:
(7)

[a]+={[al] aZ (8)

where [...] denotes the classicalfunction ofthe integerpart ofthe argument, Z is thesetofintegernumbers, and

{a}
1 Il aEZ
(9)
=l{a} aEZ
wheresimilarly {...} denotesthe function ofthe fractional partofthe argument.
Apparently, the parameters N1 andN2 considered cannot be chosen completely arbitrarily, they are restricted with
respecttoN: N must be divisibleby the product N1N2. Thereby, it can be shown that depending on the actualvalues of
N and N2 , all possible cases of e(n)canbe divided into four
3rX
general groups, called here (0) — (III). Each particularrealization
3 then, in fact, represents a class of IFTA modification. The
question ofpracticalimportance is which ofthese approaches are
2.5
1 worth further evaluation or even application with the IFTA
general scheme. Although a lot of effort has been recently
2
cc devoted to particular approaches and their improvements, this
z •1

1$. specialclassification would be clearly important itself,and would

I also identify the perspective and/or limiting classes of
approaches. The approach (0) exists for N1 = I and general
0.5 / N2 (in compliance with the general conditions, as in all other
cases), i.e.
(
00-
iteration
80 100
(0) N=l = (10)

Fig.4 A typical SNR development with respect to the
iteration number for the approach (I) in the case of no
phase elimination (target continuous phase, P= 1, i.e.
only the operator A is applied — direct amplitude
elimination). The same parameters as in Fig. 3 were
applied.
As is well known,these approachesare not of much use within
the optimization IFTA scheme since they do not converge'6; as a
matter of fact, they represents a direct quantization (also called
the multilevel phase hard clip method), without any partial
optimization, and can be practically considered useful only for
large values of L. Hence, it will not be considered any further

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 81

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 here.The approach(I) existsfor N1 = N A N2 = , i.e. I
(I) N1 = N A N2 = 1 s(n) =
{} =

This approach,denotedfurtheras the one-step approach (I), has been studied previouslyin differentcontents2124'26, and will
alsobe a subject ofcomparison. The approach (II) existsfor 1 < N1 < N A N2 = , i.e. I
(11)

(II) 1 < N < N A N2 =1 (n) = {}'

This approachis denotedfurtheras the two-step approach (II) since the algorithm basicallyconsistsofthe two loops: inner,
(12)

performing the partialquantization itself, and outer,repeatingthe wholeinner ioop. Finally, the last approach(III) existsfor
1<N <N A1<N2 <N,i.e.

(III)1<N<NA1<N2<N
1
= s(n)=1 —-- (13)
L[N2J N1j

Fig.5 A development of the PDOE complex spectrumfor the approach (I) for the same design parameters as in figure 3. Each
subfigure represents thecomplex-spectrum histogram situation afterthe 20th iteration, i.e. states atthe iteration numbers 0, 20, 40, 60,
80, and 100 are depictedfromthe left tothe right.

This is, in fact, a very general scheme, whichallows also for the situation where N > N1N2(while 1 < N2 , in contrastto the
case (II) where always N2 = I ), i.e. the wholestructure ofiterations ( N1N2) is repeated severaltimesitself. As we intend to
=
furthercomparethe basic limitingcasesonly, the case of N N1N2 is considered below inmore detail.
Altogether, as is alsocommon, all the approaches can be designated as eitherthe one-stepapproaches (cases0 and I) or
thetwo-step approaches (casesII and III,with a repetitionofthe whole one-step procedure).
In the next part, the concentration is given to a comparison ofthethree above specifiedand in a sense special extreme
IFTA approachesthat are ofpracticalinterest: (I), (II), and (III). These are, more specifically: (I) the one-step approach with
the direct partial quantization — N1 = N A N2 = 1 , (II) the two-step approach with the repetition of the wholepartial
quantization—1 < N1 < N A N2 = 1 , and(III)the thirdtwo-stepapproach with therepetitionofan eachpartially quantizing
step — 1 < N1 < N A 1 < N2 < N . That is, in the case (I), a quantization process is performed only ones during the whole
design process, in each step applying continuously expanding surroundings of the pre-described quantization levels
(typicallyin a simpledefinedway,e.g. linearlyincreasing their area). In the secondcase (II), as the firstmodification oftwo-
step approaches presented herein, the same one-step quantization process as in the case (I) is used (the whole partial
quantization takes place within the inner loop), but this procedure is itself repeated within the outer cycle. Finally, in the
approach (III), as the second modification oftwo-step approaches, all particularlyexpandedsurroundings are themselves
repeatedwhile the whole quantization is performed only ones.
Of course, new degrees of algorithm control arise within these modifications, i.e. particular numbers of repetition
chosen, and their combinations, can be tuned to obtain specificfinal results(in our case in terms ofthe SNR). It is obvious
that, in general, increasing the total numberof iterations would improve the final PDOEperformance, providedthat other
proper convergence conditions are fulfilled (e.g. the right shapeof the scale factor withinthe R operator, etc.). However,
for the purposeofthe comparison withinthis paper,in order to obtain the comparable results,the total numberof iterations
N would be strictly kept constant within this section for all approaches. This means that all three processeshave been
primarily studied withthe same total numberofiterations.

82 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 Now, let us analyse the SNR developments with respect to the numberofiterationsfor the approaches considered. In
this case, the parameterof SNR describesa quality ofthe semi-quantized structure for a particularnumber of iteration. It
should be remarked that typicallyone only looks at the final values ofthe SNR for a given iterationnumber (the algorithm
actually stops after a chosen number of iterations). Generally, one can expect that when applying the direct partial
quantization approach the SNR dependence on the number of iterations will decrease from its high initial value (a
continuous spectrum) to its much lower final value (quantizedspectrum). This is because the final spectrum offers less
degrees offreedomfor optimisation. The actual decrease would depend on the design strategy, and types of eliminations of
both amplitude and continuous phase. It is our task to makethis decrease as small as possible.
However, after actuallycalculating the development ofthe SNR with respectto the iterationnumberduring the iterative
process with the direct amplitude and partial phase quantization, the functional dependence looks as the one depicted in
Fig. 3a) (plottedfor the following parameters: design matrix: 256; signalwindow: 32; total numberof iterations: 100; 4-level
phase design; signal window location - offaxis; appliedfor all cases). It should be stressedat this point that our aim here is
not to identify the best design approach for a particular selected input object example, but rather to show a general
tendenciesand possibilities within the specified approacheswhich shouldbe considered by a designer. In fact, in orderto be
able to make a comparison at all, all the parameters (most importantly the total numberof iterations N ) shouldbe kept the
same, as is done below. Moreover,the tendencies and characteristics discussedbelow are valid, regardless on a particular
type of the diffusive input objects, and particularvalues of parameters chosen (mainly signal matrix and signal window
dimensions, signalwindow locations, etc.). Suchatypical input PDOE,togetherwith the computer simulated reconstruction,
and designresult is shown in Fig. 7 below. In fact, we have considered and calculated the resultsofthe three approaches for
varioustypesofinput objects, with qualitatively and alsoquantitatively the sameresults(ratia ofSNR).
As can be seen in Fig. 3a), SNR firstly rapidly increases. As a matter offact, it does almostexactly during the first half

Fig.6 A development ofthe PDOE complex spectrum for the approach (II) forthe same design parameters as in Fig. 3. First, third,
and fifth cycle out ofthe total number offive outer cycles (N /N1= 5) are shown in the first, second, and third row ofsubfigures,
respectively. Within each ofthese sequences, 4th 8th 12th 16th, and 20th iteration situationis plotted.

of the total number of iterations(N chosen to be 100 in Fig. 3); then, during the second halfof the process, it rapidly
decreases to its final value (SNR= 2851). To explain this behaviourwe must consider the influence of the method of

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 83

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 spectral-plane amplitude removing(operatorA) withinevery iteration beforephase quantization (we are considering the case
of PDOEs). Indeed,duringthe first iteration, a direct removal ofthe amplitude (or rather its replacement with theconstant
value of 1) in every point, before the partial phase quantization, has introduced a high error to the process and a strong
decreaseof the SNR value down to a very small value (almost close to 0). The subsequent iterations (with the amplitude
removal combined with a partial phase quantization) have then improved the reconstruction quality and SNR have
significantly increased, until the break point locatedapproximately in the middle ofthe total iteration number(see Fig. 3a)).
Such a resulting development ofthe SNR can be explained as the conjuncture of the two contradictory processes: (I) the
influence ofdirect amplitude removal and (2) the effectofphase partial quantization. To supportthis explanation, a typical
development ofthe SNR can be observed in the case ofthe direct spectral amplitude elimination and no phase quantization
(continuous target phase),as illustratedin Fig. 4. In this case, dueto the directamplitude elimination influence, as one would
expect, the SNR is an ascending function of the iteration number, because only the first of described processes was
compounded.
We havealso calculated the corresponding SNR evolutions forthe two-stepapproaches (II) and (III), and a comparison
is also shown in Fig. 3; i.e.thedevelopments for theapproach with a repetitionofthewholepartialquantization (II), and for
a
the approach with repetition of an each partially-quantizing step (III) are shown in Figs. 3b) and 3c), respectively. In
Fig. 3b), the total number of iterations (N = 100) was divided into the sequence of 5 outer repetitions ( N2 = I ) of 20
iterations (N1 = 20 ) ofthe partial quantization. It is seen that each of 5 cycles ofthe total quantization process results in a
curve very similarto the approach (I) development (compare Figs. 3b) and 3a)). These curves are modulatedon the growing
envelope curve whichevidentlysaturates to its limiting value. Markedly, such growth is a consequence ofa repetitionofthe
quantization procedure. It is seen from Fig. 3b) that the overall quality (tangibly SNR = 593) is limited by the saturation
a
valueofthis curve whichis given bythe length ofan elementary cycle.For such given length,it is not possible to reachthe
final quality values higher than the saturation limit, regardless ofthe number of cycles. Note, that this saturation value is

Fig.7The testing PDOEobject used forthe referencecalculationspresented: (a) input object, (b) simulated computer reconstruction
ofthe input object, and (c) designed PDOE microstructure. Parameters: design matrix: 256 x 256, signal window:32 x 32, total
numberofiterations: N= 100 4-level phasedesign,signalwindow location- offaxis.
,
smaller than the final SNR value in the first case (compare final valuesof SNR= 2851 and 593, for the approaches (I) and
(II), respectively).
A case of the third approach (III), where each partial expansion of surroundings of quantization levels is repeated
several times while the whole quantization is made only ones, is depicted in Fig. 3c) ( N = 100 = N1N2 = 5.20 , tangibly
SNR = 2436). Here, we have concentrated on the special and most importantcase within the frame of (III) only, i.e.
N =N1N2 . The remaining case of N > N1N2represents, in fact, already a more complicated combined case, with the
featuresintrinsic to the case (II), namelythe repetitionofthe whole quantization procedure, resulting in a overalltendency
of the behaviourof the outer-envelope shape of the SNR curve. In this sense, certainly, further sub-classification of the
approach (III), underthe additional assumption apart from the given above, can be contemplated. However, furtherstudies,
especially on the final SNR performance are needed inthis combined case.
For the case considered herein, N = N1N2 , it is clearly seen that the repetition of elementary expansions results in
abruptincrease ofSNR, similarlyto the approach (I), but each "newly enlarged" expansion atthe beginning ofthe new inner
sub-cycle causes, in turn, an abrupt SNR decrease which is in a new cycle again compensated by repeating the same

84 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 operation. Whatis very importantwithin this approach is evidentlythe last cycle since it directlydetermines the final SNR.
a
In concurrence to the discussion on thespectrum shaping,one needs "reasonable" amount ofunprocessedcomplex values
left duringthe whole iteration process since these values are necessaryfor the correctoptimisation. Apparently, ifthere is a
removal ofa majority ofall valuesleft within the lastpart ofthe algorithm, the subsequent removal is not effective, and does
not have a much sense; the algorithm stagnates. There are several possible ways how to avoid this kind ofstagnation, one of
thembeingto decreasethe quantization stepat the end ofpenultimate cycle.
To support our analysis of SNR developments, it is also usefulto simultaneously observethedevelopment ofcomplex
spectrum histograms. The two spectra developments corresponding to the approach (I) and (II) studied are displayedin
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Fig. 5 shows a typical development ofthe PDOEspectrum forthe caseofa good convergence of

Fig.8 A development ofthe PDOE complex spectrum for the approach(I) with iterativeamplitude elimination, for the same design
parameters as in Fig. 3. Each subfigurerepresents the complex-spectrum histogram situation after the 20th iteration, i.e. states at the
iterationnumbers 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 aredepictedfromthe left tothe right.

the first approach (SNR= 2851). In Fig. 5, each subfigure represents the situation after the next 20th iteration before the
actual partial quantization takes place (direct amplitude elimination and the scale factor applied). Such a spectrum
development is clearlydistinguishable from a case without the proper scale factor, as was demonstrated in Refs. 21,23-24,
and is a good evidence of the convergence quality. Indeed, in this case the PDOE spectrum clearly shows a very good
convergence ofthe approach (I) ofthe IFTA algorithm since the partially quantized structure is not practicallydeteriorated
by replacementof the amplitudewithin the signal window. It should be noted that each such a spectrum gives an ideal
reconstruction ofthe input object, and the last figure in the sequence illustrates the situation just beforethe final quantization
is proceeded. It is clearly seen that the spectrum is almost entirely prepared for the last quantization, i.e. it possesses only
desired quantized phase values.
Next, Fig. 6 shows the spectradevelopments forthe approach (II), i.e. the approach with arepetitionofthe wholepartial
quantization. It is shown how the spectrum evolves within the three cyclesout offive: 1st, 3rd(middle), and (final).Within
each ofthese sequences, 4th, 8th 12th 16th and 20th iteration are presented. Whenlookingat the last histograms withineach
cycle, it is evidenthowthe spreading ofthe processed values is gradually diminished. Finally, for the approach (III), i.e. the
approach with a repetition of an each partially quantizingstep, we have opted for an explanation without a figure. As a
matter of fact, if the spectra were taken each after the 20th iteration, they would look very similar to the first case (see
Fig. 5). This is also clear whencomparing the SNRdevelopments (Fig. 3a) and b)); the SNR curve inthe 1stcase is, actually,
an envelope of oscillating curve in thecase (III). In order to distinguish a detailedstructuring within spectradevelopments,
one wouldneed to plot in detail the spectraprogress in an inner loop, but this is notnecessaryhere.
In Fig. 7, the testing PDOE input object used for all the reference calculations presented above is show (Fig. 7a)),
together with the simulated computer reconstruction of the input object (Fig. 7b)), and designed PDOE microstructure
(Fig. 7c)), with the parameters specified in the figure caption. Here, the design was performed by the approach (I), but
clearly, the reconstructions and designed structures look at such a scale practically the same when generated by the
approaches(II) and (III). More importantly, choosinga differentdiffusive-type input objectwould lead to qualitatively the
same results, as the three approaches are compared; although the actual absolute numerical values of SNR would be
different, their relative ratia would be approximately maintained. Moreover, as is well known, a theoreticaldifference of
SNR (of orders ofhundreds or thousands) in several units or even tens ofpercent is not criticalfrom the practicalpoint of
view ofa PDOE design.
To conclude, the main message of this comparison is the following: for an efficientiterative design using the IFTA
scheme, all the presentedapproaches can be used in principle, depending on a designer's choice. The best results are
obtainedusing the approach (I) (see Fig. 3a)) when N1 = N A N2 = I , i.e. the local surrounding increment is as smallest as
possible (for a given N ). As is seen, this turns out to be a very important issue. However, the approaches(II) and (III) can
be competingwith the case (1). That has been confirmed by many testing examples. Additionally, the approaches (II) and
(III) provide a PDOE designer with a larger variability, namely with a variabilityofthe outer/inner cycles (choices of N1

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 85

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 and N2 ). Specifically,the approach (H) can also offer an independence ofouter cycles; the designcan be either finished
after a specific numberofouter cycles(see Fig. 3b)), ifthe qualityis already sufficient, or it can be carriedon in subsequent
cycles.In contrastto the firstcase (I), this approach does not haveto be run until the very end (which is necessary due to the
SNR development ofa kind ofFig. 3a) onthe numberofiteration chosen).Further, the idea ofthe approach (III)has, in fact,
arisen from Fig. 4 where a simple repetitionofthe direct amplitude elimination leads to the SNR improvement. In fact, the
approach(III)appliesthe same scheme ofrepetitionson the partial phaseelimination. Thus,this case is very similarto the
first case (compare also the values of SNR), and there is only a control freedom within the last cycles of the process.
Virtually, there are someadditionalpossibilities within the approach (I) too (a singlestep size refinement, arefinement at the
beginning/at the algorithm cycle end). However, such an effort for the improvement has been examined by us, and has not
broughtany significantimprovements. Our aim here was not, however, to choose the ultimately best approach,but ratherto
show different possibilities of the approaches and, based on a mutual comparison, to enable a deeper insight onto the
iterative IFTA scheme capabilities. The data presentedcould be used as a basis for furtherdiscussions ofpossibilities ofa
particulardesign approach, too.
Hence, having the total numberof iterations equalto N (i.e. the total numberof FT and FT1 transformations, and thus
the given computation time), it is always a designer's choice how to exploit it as best as possible, and how to specify the
numbers N1 and N2 . If one chooseseither one of the extreme cases, one should then expect the either one of the three
design behaviours (I) - (III), with respect to the SNR, as presented above. Based on these considerations, it is always
possibleto apply more elaborate structuring of iterations (i.e. the relationsof N1 and N2 ), as the case III ( N > N1 N2), or
even more complexmultilevel structuring (of a type N1 , N2,N3, ..., N, which, however,is not ofpracticalimportance, and
has not been our aim in this contribution). The limitingcases studied, in this sense, can help to predict the behaviourofan
optimisation strategychosen.
Finally, we would like to stress that, throughout all this paper, the amplitude of the complex spectrum was always
removeddirectlyat every step. We havealso studied the case ofpartialamplitude elimination21'2324 , i.e. insteadofusing the
A operator independent on n, a more general form 4(a) 5 introduced, similarlyas for the . From the point ofview of
this contribution, there is a remaining question ifthe partial iterative amplitudeelimination could help to improve the
— —

convergence or to bring a better adaptability ofthe algorithm. This is due to the fact that a direct removal ofthe amplitude
always represents a radical intervention to the optimisation procedure(as is seen in Fig. 3a)); such a direct elimination
stronglydecreases SNR at the beginning ofthe iterative processwhereour aim is to minimize the overalldisturbance within
the step. Therefore, this idea of iterative amplitude removal, as implemented2324, has been applied to evaluatethe first
approach convergence with respect to the number of iterations. A typical result is shown in Fig. 8 for the iterative
developmentofthe complexhistogram when the amplitude is removed iteratively (the same parameters as in Fig. 5 were
applied).As can be seen, a good convergence has also been reached. However, a more detailedcomparisonis needed, as
well as an analysis of the partial amplitude elimination approach utilization, and of possibilities of combination of both
amplitudeelimination approachesforthe final SNR improvements. This will be a subjectofthe follow-up publication.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In particular, we have studied in a detail the phase operatorP as a part ofthe operator Q ofpartialquantization. We have
introduced a specific classification ofthe IFTA iterative scheme approaches with respectto quantization constraint strategies
that is based on the relationsand structuring ofthe loops within the total number of iterations N . In this sense, we have
presented a comparison of the three different extreme approaches within the iterative Fourier transform algorithm for the
case ofmultilevel phase-only diffractive opticalelements. It has turnedout to be beneficiary to studythese three approaches
separately, not only due to understanding the important tendencies and to mutual comparison. The approach (I), the
approach with a repetition of the whole partial quantization (II), and the approach with a repetitionof an each partially-
quantizingstep (III) have been used for designing PDOEs reconstructing the same types ofinput diffusiveobjects, keeping
the total number of iterationsalways the same. The performance ofthese three algorithms was compared using the SNR
characteristic developments as well as the complex spectrum histogram representations of a PDOE, with respect to the
number of iterations. Confrontation of the designapproach (I) with the two-stepapproaches(II) and (III) have shown that
thebest SNR resultscanbe obtainedusingtheapproach(I), but all thepresentedapproaches can be used in principle. The
a
main advantage ofthe two-stepapproaches is that they offer larger variability within the design process. The aim ofthis
paper, however, was not to select the prime approach, but rather to show differentcapabilities ofthese particularextreme
cases and, based on a mutual comparison, to enable a designerdeeper insight onto the iterative IFTA scheme modifications
and possibilities. Hence, the advantages and drawbacks ofall approacheshavebeen discussed whichcould imply a choice of

86 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 a particularapproach for some typical design. Finally, we havealso shortlypointed out that the very often-usedmethod of
direct amplitude elimination of the originally complexPDOE spectrum within the design procedure can be changedto the
partiallyamplitude-eliminating approach.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work has been partly supported by the Ministry ofIndustry and Trade ofthe Czech RepublicProject FB-C3/58. Also,
partial supports from the GrantAgencyof Academy of Sciences ofthe Czech Republic(with contract No. S 2065014)and
from the GrantAgency ofthe CzechRepublic (project202/011D004) are greatlyacknowledged.

5. REFERENCES

1. W. J. Dallas, Computer-generated holograms, in B.R.Frieden, Ed., The computerin opticalresearch, Topics in applied
physics,Vol. 41, Springer-Verlag,Berlin, 1980.
2. H. P. Herzig,Ed., Micro-optics: elements, systems andapplications,Taylor& Francis, London, 1997.
3. F. Wyrowski, Ed., SPIE Proceedings1718 - Workshopon Digital Holography, 1992; EOS Topical MeetingDigest
Series 12 - Diffractive Optics, 1997;OSA Technical Digest10 - Diffractive Opticsand Micro-Optics, 1998.
4. 0. Bryngdahl and F. Wyrowski, "Digitalholography— computer generatedholograms,"in Progress in Optics XXVIII,
ElsevierPublishing Company, Amsterdam, 1990.
5. B. R. Brown and A.W.Lohmann, "Complex spatial filteringwith binarymasks,"AppliedOptics5, p. 967, 1966.
6. F. Wyrowski, "Designtheoryofdiffractive elementsin the paraxial domain," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10, p. 1553, 1993.
7. R. Piestun, R., B. Spektor, B., and J. Shamir, "On-axis binary-amplitude computer generated holograms," Optics
Communications 136, p. 85, 1997.
8. F. Fetthauer, C. Stroot, and 0. Bryngdahl, "On the quantization of hologramswith the iterative Fourier transform
algorithm," Opt. Communications 136, p. 7, 1997.
9. J. R. Fienap, "Iterative method applied to image reconstruction and to computer-generated holograms," Optical
Engineering19, p. 297, 1980.
10. 5. Kirkpatrick, C. D. GelattJr., P. Vecchi, "Optimization by simulated annealing," Science 220, p. 671, 1983.
1 1. M. A. Seldowitz, J. P. Allebach, and D. W. Sweeney, "Synthesis ofdigitalholograms by directbinarysearch," Applied
Optics26, p. 71, 1987.
12. R. Hauck and 0. Bryngdahl, "Computer generated holograms with pulse-density modulation," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1, p.
5, 1984.
I3. K. Heggarty and R. Chevalier, "Signal window minimum average error algorithm for computer generated holograms,"
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, p. 625, 1998.
14. J. N. Mait, "Fourier array generators," in H. P. Herzig, Ed., Micro-optics: elements, systemsandapplications, Taylor
& Francis, London, 1997.
I5. L. Legeard, P. Réfrëgier, and P. Ambs, "Multicriteria optimality for iterative encoding of computer-generated
holograms," AppliedOptics36, p. 7444, 1997.
16. F. Wyrowski, F. and 0. Bryngdahl, 0., 1988, IterativeFourier-transform algorithm appliedto computerholography. I
Opt. Soc. Am.A, 5, 1058.
I7. P. Birch, R. Young, M. Farsari, C. Chatwin, and D. Budgett, "A comparison of the iterative Fourier transform and
evolutionary algorithms for the design of diffractive optical elements," Optics andLasers in Engineering33, p. 439,
2000.
18. D. Lack, T. Zeggel, and 0. Bryngdahl, "Multi-level image quantization with object-dependent spectral control," Opt.
Communications 175,p. 33, 2000.
19. T. Tuttass, T. Zeggel, and 0. Bryngdahl, "Iterativealgorithm for image quantization with signal adaptation," Opt.
Communications 158, p. 18, 1998.
20. 5. Trester,"ComputersimulatedFresnel holography, Eur. I. Phys.21, p. 317, 2000.
21. M. kereñ, I. Richter, and P. Fiala, "Convergence studies of the iterative Fourier transform algorithm," EOS Topical
MeetingDigestSeries30, p. 30, 2001 (EOS TopicalMeetingon Diffractive Optics,Budapest, Hungary, 2001).
22. M. kerefi, I. Richter, and P. Fiala, "Fresnel-domain computer generated holograms," EOS Topical Meeting Digest
Series30, p. 76, 2001 (EOS Topical Meeting on Diffractive Optics, Budapest, Hungary, 2001).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770 87

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use
 23. M. kereñ, I. Richter, and P. Fiala, 'Laser beam shaping by binary and multi-level phase-only diffractive optical
elements," ProceedingsofSPIE4443,p. 1, 2001.
24. M. kerefi, I. Richter, and P. Fiala, 'Design ofbinary phase-only diffractive optical elements for laserbeam shaping,"
ProceedingsoJSPIE 4095, p. 154, 2000.
25. P. Fiala, I. Richter, Z. RyzI, and M. Skereñ, "Optical Diffractive Structures," CTU Workshop Proceedings, Czech
Technical University in Prague, p. 68, 2000.
26. P. Fiala, F. Matèjka, I. Richter, and M. kereñ, "Diffractive optics: analysis, design, and fabrication of diffractive
optical elements," Proceedingsofthe New trends in Physics conference, p. 345, 2001 (TechnicalUniversityin Brno,
Czech Republic).
27. F. Wyrowski, "Upperbound ofthe diffraction efficiency ofdiffractive phaseelements," Optics Letters 16, 1915, 1991.

88 Proc. of SPIE Vol. 4770

Downloaded From: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie on 17 Nov 2023

Terms of Use: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/terms-of-use